Skip to main content
Fig. 1 | Evidence-Based Endodontics

Fig. 1

From: Efficacy evaluation of a cordless ultrasonic unit in achieving reduction of bacterial load within a root canal system as compared to a conventional ultrasonic unit and negative pressure irrigation

Fig. 1

Post-treatment CFU counts quantified by five categories of growth on agar plates, corresponding to colony forming units per 0.1 ml transport medium, ranging from very heavy (score 5) to none (score 0). Post-treatment bacterial growth from canal samples was significantly less for EndoVac than the syringe 1% NaOCl (p = 0.006) and PBS (p = 0.015) techniques, but there was no significant difference between the cordless (p = 0.283) and conventional ultrasonic devices (p = 0.398). There was no difference between the EndoVac negative pressure irrigation and either of the ultrasonic devices (p = 0.0806)

Back to article page